It's your responsibility. When does it become the fault of others when you ride without a helmet, and you're in an accident?

Melb69 on 04/02/2019 - 19:09
Last edited 14/02/2019 - 20:08 by 2 other users

Today I saw 2 bicycle riders. I wore a helmet and was generally riding on the footpath, but riding through lights on a red pedestrian signal and almost hit by a car turning left. She kept going like nothing happened.

Then later on my drive home another rider without a helmet. Riding on the road.

I mean really. If either of then were injured due to a car hitting them. Whose fault is it and who should pay for their stupidity and medical expenses. TAC.

There is currently a push by the riders association that riding without a helmet is an option. WTF. Put a dam helmet on. Being hit by a car is going to hurt. There's also currently this thing in Vic where motorised bike riders are riding in the bike lane. I don't think this is safe either. Especially when there are uber bikers, and he's checking his phone as to where hes meant to be going, and not looking at the road ahead. OMG

It's not that hard. Even if you stumble off your bike yourself and hit the pavement it could be serious without a helmet on.

What do you all think?

Automotive

Comments

    • saltysalt on 08/02/2019 - 16:23

      I struggling to understand your point but getting angry because a cyclist is making you wait two seconds is pretty silly. The majority of the time you and the other cars around you are the bad traffic that you are stuck in and you’re just going to get overtaken by the cyclist at the next traffic light.

      • orangetrain on 09/02/2019 - 14:29

        Come to sydney. For 6 blocks, half, there's bike path. Other half, none.

        Some bike paths are very narrow too that are less than handle bars. I like biking anywhere but on sydney roads

        Thats not factoring in the vehicle drivers.

  • slow on 05/02/2019 - 08:36

    Overweight people who don't exercise and/or smoke are a far greater risk to the health system than me riding a bicycle without a helmet

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 09:27
      +1

      And both (potentially, hopefully not) you and the fatties/chimneys are a strain to the health system because of personal negligence.

  • 91rs on 05/02/2019 - 08:40
    +1

    You could make the same argument about peoples health and lifestyle choices for food, alcohol, drugs, exercise and general fitness or things like j-walking across a street on your phone and getting hit by a car or bus.
    Think of the load that could be lightened from hospitals if there were less diabetics, fewer cancer patients (smoking, alcohol related), heart conditions in obese people etc.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 08:56
    -1

    Were they wearing Lycra? Maybe they should be wearing protective padding?

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 09:24
      +1

      Some people should never wear Lycra.

  • sghetti on 05/02/2019 - 09:07
    +1

    I cycled to work for a while and I cannot see any reason why you wouldn't wear a helmet. It's not than inconvenient and can save your life, just like a seatbelt.

    I bought a reasonable, lightweight and breathable helmet for around $60 or so and it was perfect.

    I grew a bit of appreciation, patience and understanding for cyclists after riding to work. But I still see many arrogant things occur that I just don't understand. Riding outside of bike lanes (when they're perfectly fine) and riding 2 or more abreast.

  • backpaqer on 05/02/2019 - 09:09
    +5

    TAC is a no-fault scheme. Also, helmets are only designed to protect your head in a collision of 20kmh or less - cars generally average way higher than this speed, so if you are relying on a piece of foam saving your life against a car hitting you then you might as well strap on a cape and jump off a cliff and try pretend you're Superman.

    Australia (and NZ) are the only countries that force their cyclists to pay other countries for foam hats to create an illusion of safety (most helmets are not made in Australia). Are the hospitals of other countries full of cyclists with head wounds? No they're not. It feels a lot safer to ride on the roads in Europe (helmet or no helmet).

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 09:55
      +3

      Also, helmets are only designed to protect your head in a collision of 20kmh or less - cars generally average way higher than this speed, so if you are relying on a piece of foam saving your life against a car hitting you then you might as well strap on a cape and jump off a cliff and try pretend you're Superman.

      Cars don't hit people in the helmet. Generally people fall, land on the some part of the body and the head hits the ground. The "20kmph" also doesn't take into account direction or type of force.

      Sliding on gravel is better with any helmet than with bare scalp.

      Having a small stone wedged into the helmet is better than in the head.

      Are the hospitals of other countries full of cyclists with head wounds?

      Some countries, seatbelts are not enforced. Are the hospitals full of whiplash patients?

      Some countries do not have bicycle lanes. Are the hospitals full of cyclist hit by vehicles?

      Some countries do not require a registered electricians to do electrical work. Are the hospitals full of crispy patients?

      What a rhetoric.

    • dave999 on 05/02/2019 - 11:36
      +1

      Australia (and NZ) are the only countries that force their cyclists to pay other countries for foam hats to create an illusion of safety

      That is completely false - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws_by_country

      • Cliche Guevara on 05/02/2019 - 15:05

        Hmm… apparently no bicycles in Greenland.

    • Roman Sandstorm on 07/02/2019 - 11:08
      +1

      @backpaqer

      helmets are only designed to protect your head in a collision of 20kmh or less

      Errr…. so the solution is to only travel faster than 20 km/h. Like Keanu's bus in Speed.

  • gyrex on 05/02/2019 - 09:17
    +1

    I'd postulate that people who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" have been in major bicycle accidents without helmets on.

  • zooter on 05/02/2019 - 09:39

    needs a poll

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 09:50

      You mean we need to remove polls. Less chance of collision for the helmetless.

  • GoatLord64 on 05/02/2019 - 09:46
    +1

    Tbh if im going to be riding near or on roads, which i rarely do, i do put on a helmet. But for riding in quiet streets on the footpath or on a trail nowhere near a road i dont see to much of a point as im not going to fall off because i ride safely.

  • mysterytal on 05/02/2019 - 10:08
    +6

    I would ride a bicycle to the shops if it did not require me to wear a helmet.

    So as it's legally required I don't ride a bicycle at all. I sit at home watching TV and when I want to pick up something from the shops which are less than a 5 minute ride away I jump in the car instead and drive there.

    I'm currently having some minor health issues due in part to my sedentary lifestyle and so far that's cost over $2,000 in investigation costs including GP visits, radiology and pathology. I haven't paid a cent it's all covered in full by Medicare and bulk billing.

    • ozhunter on 05/02/2019 - 10:24

      I'm currently having some minor health issues due in part to my sedentary lifestyle

      You can do other exercises at home. Those issues are all on you. Instead of finding someone/something to blame, you should put a little effort into exercising, for your benefit.

      • mysterytal on 05/02/2019 - 10:37

        Exercise causes pain but as cycling is non-impact that would be ideal but I will not ride a bicycle whilst this law exists. I never sped around on the bike I rode at a slow leisurely pace around the park, on bike tracks, to the library, to the shops. I never went on to the highway sticking to local roads and cycle paths. I would cross the highway on foot at the lights. However, I don't think a helmet would save my life if I were hit by a car travelling at 80km/h.

        I did that until about 2000 when I was given a caution for not wearing a helmet and never rode again. From then I've sat around much more and driving the car to get small things when I would have cycled instead.

        • ozhunter on 05/02/2019 - 10:54
          +1

          Can always just simply put a helmet. Sounds like a really poor excuse, especially since it's affecting your health.

          • pegaxs on 05/02/2019 - 13:00
            +3

            @ozhunter: Could always walk to the shops. That doesn't require a helmet… But you know, that's none of my business *Kermit_sipping_tea_meme.jpg*

        • bongom on 05/02/2019 - 15:33
          +2

          Don't need a helmet to ride a stationary exercise bike?

    • dave999 on 05/02/2019 - 11:38

      What is the reason you refuse to wear a helmet?

      • norrisrules on 05/02/2019 - 12:16
        +1

        This is always my question too which never gets an answer. Constantly see people in the city who have a helmet on their handle bars while they ride, or significantly worse is when it's on their head but they haven't done the strap up… You've bought and paid for it, brought it with you on the ride, put it on your head but refuse to do the strap up to make it effective. I don't understand

        • pegaxs on 05/02/2019 - 13:03

          What is the reason you refuse to wear a helmet?

          'Cause it's 'Straya, (fropanity)!

          Or my favourite…

          "No one died when I was a kid from not wearing a helmet. Me farvers car didn't even have seat belts and we all lived through that…"

          • Other on 07/02/2019 - 23:52

            @pegaxs: If you dont have a seat belt in your car you instantly die. Or something like that.

        • SkMed on 05/02/2019 - 15:47
          +3

          They make it unbearably hot for me. Imagine going for a run wearing a beanie in summer, its not a fun time. Helmets make me overheat and get hot and sweaty enough that I cannot ride to work :( I know for a fact I can ride to work without a helmet and not be a sweaty mess as I have done it on the weekend via a longer route avoiding roads and not wearing a helmet so the helmet law really pisses me off and is a legitimate reason I cannot ride my bike to work.

          Also I ride with my helmet on my handlebars when i'm not on the road so its close by if i spot the police ahead.

          When I do wear my helmet its impossible to do the strap tight enough to a point where i'm confident it would stay on during an accident without it actually choking me and limiting my head movement to be able to check for traffic etc.. So for me if I actually wear it properly I feel its more dangerous than not wearing one at all.

          And yes, i've tried all kinds of helmets.

          • norrisrules on 05/02/2019 - 19:45
            +3

            @SkMed: i literally don't even know where to start with your reasoning… Having ridden 100km+ events without 'excessive head sweating' nor asphyxiating myself from a 'too tight strap', I can't believe that is the best justification someone has.

            Oh well.. another $319 into the government coffers when they see you trying to quickly put on a helmet 50 meters away haha

            • SkMed on 08/02/2019 - 20:07

              @norrisrules: It's unfortunate us regular cycle commuters aren't somehow ride 100km without excessive head sweating! You must be a serious cyclist riding 100km for fun… which I assume you've trained for… which means your body has adapted not sweat as much as a regular person … which makes you a fringe case in this argument.

              Either the above is true or you're bald maybe? Whatever it is wearing anything on ones head while doing cardio is going to make their head sweatier than not wearing something on ones head. I happen to be on the opposite side of bald with long thick hair so for me having to wear a helmet its actually a problem which prevents me from riding a lot more than Id like to.

              I assume my hair is also likely the reason why the straps of any helmet need to choke me and limit my head movement to be worn tight enough to be useful at all. No i'm not shaving my head just to obey some bullshit nanny state law that no other sane country has in place.

              Also FYI, still haven't been busted without a helmet, It's actually very easy to out ride bike cops who have limited head movement and overheat in their little plastic hats haha. But seriously, I just duck in a back street any time I've seen them in the distance. I get the feeling the police don't really don't seem to care too much, I assume its because they know its a bit of a bullshit shit law too and only really police it when they really have to.

  • Speckled Jim on 05/02/2019 - 10:09
    +1

    The sudden decelerative force of a head impact sees the brain collide with the interior of the skull. This is the major cause of brain injury.
    It happens every day whether people wear a helmet or not.

    A helmet may keep the mess better contained with less blood at the scene; fewer traumatised witnesses and emergency workers!
    Well played, State Overlords.

    • HighAndDry on 05/02/2019 - 11:39

      The sudden decelerative force of a head impact sees the brain collide with the interior of the skull.

      You realise the shock absorbent material in a helmet is designed to decrease precisely this decelerative force right? That's why you're supposed to replace a helmet after any and all impacts?

      • Speckled Jim on 05/02/2019 - 12:23

        No, it's largely superficial. Skin might look good (open casket?).

        Your organs are traveling at a given speed regardless of what you're wearing. Helmets are tested on static rigs and dummies with moving weights hitting them. Last I checked, they didn't use live subjects with brains. Conductive gel with g-meters would be useful in gauging risk of brain injury. To test them properly would reveal their limited protection.

        Gear may prevent gravel rash and some projectile entry, but no helmet can pad the brain and skull interior to prevent concussion. For that to be possible, you'd need an external airbag to slow the decelerative forces sufficiently. That's fine in a car as you have time from activation at the front bumper as you're swiftly bent forward (if belted-up).
        You'd need something predictive with a helmet.

        • HighAndDry on 05/02/2019 - 12:26

          No - helmets are not just the hard shell. The internal material is like the crumple zone of a car, it absorbs impact and spreads out the deceleration over a longer distance, and so decreases peak deceleration.

          They're obviously not as good as an airbag, but they're far better than just your skull.

          • Speckled Jim on 05/02/2019 - 12:55

            @HighAndDry: So, in your delusion, there's no concussion possible if you're wearing a helmet.

            Have someone post your video of you wearing a magic helmet and taking a swan dive off a 1.8m fence, head-first onto concrete. That is, if you have anything to prove.

            Done here.

            • HighAndDry on 05/02/2019 - 12:58

              @Speckled Jim:

              So, in your delusion, there's no concussion possible if you're wearing a helmet.

              Where the F did you read that? No, it reduces the chances of a concussion and/or reduces the severity of a possible concussion, because it reduces the peak force experienced when your noggin hits the asphalt.

            • pegaxs on 05/02/2019 - 13:06

              @Speckled Jim:

              So, in your delusion

              Only one delusional about helmets here, is you.

              Your whole argument behind not wearing a helmet is they only serve to offer an open casket funeral.

              As someone who has had a few motorcycle racing and road accidents, I can tell you, one of the biggest life saving devices I had on at the time, was my helmet…

              • outlander on 05/02/2019 - 15:06

                @pegaxs:

                As someone who has had a few motorcycl

                Motorcycle helmets function completely different to bicycle helmets.

                • norrisrules on 05/02/2019 - 19:42
                  +1

                  @outlander: Care to explain how?

                • pegaxs on 05/02/2019 - 19:47
                  +1

                  @outlander: No they don't. Sure, one is designed for much higher speed impacts, but outside that, their function and how they do it is exactly the same.

                  My bicycle helmet has a hard outer shell, expanded polystyrene foam inner shell, soft foam padding liner for comfort.

                  My motorcycle helmet has, hard outer shell, expanded polystyrene inner shell and soft foam padding liner for comfort.

                  Hard outer shell absorbs impact and disperses energy around the helmet and protects from abrasion.

                  Inner poly styrene foam slows linear movement of the head by absorbing momentum of your noggin to slow it down.

                  Comfort liner is for comfort… Dah!

                  So, please, in your infinite wisdom and your engineering genius, please, tell me how a bicycle helmet operates "completely differently" to a motorcycle helmet?

  • Ozpit on 05/02/2019 - 10:09
    +2

    All tourists and international students should be made to wear inflatable rings, flippers and snorkels when swimming on our beaches or they don’t get rescued.

  • abb on 05/02/2019 - 10:25
    +4

    Scientific studies show that non-mandatory helmets are a net gain for the health system, because it encourages more people to ride (hygiene, logistics, perception of risk), which reduces heart disease (which is vastly more common than head injuries).

    I'd encourage people to always wear a helmet, but the science shows our laws are probably wrong.

  • Bargain80 on 05/02/2019 - 10:42
    +1

    regardless of the helmet regulation, I think we all agree that riding bike is dangerous activity in Australia.
    Therefore we should focus on improving the safety of bike riding with regulations such as:
    - Rider should be able to ride on footpath with speed under 20km/h
    - If not on footpath, rider must always ride on a dedicated bike lane (and of course government must build more bike lane)
    - Speed limit on bike lane is enforced to 40 km/h
    - Road is not a race circuit. Bike Racer wannabe should race in a circuit.
    - etc.

    • dave999 on 05/02/2019 - 11:43
      -1

      I agree with all of your points except riding on the footpath. Many footpaths could and should be shared paths but there a plenty of footpaths that absolutely should not be allowed for bikes. What some bike riders can't comprehend is that children, pregnant women and old people etc need a path free from bikes.

      The real answer is that their should be way, way more bike lanes - and bikes should then be forced to use them.

      • Bargain80 on 05/02/2019 - 13:54

        OK, I think 20km/h is a bit excessive for footpath. maybe like 5km/h.
        I think you should be able to ride slowly on footpath providing you respect (give away) to pedestrians.

    • trapper on 05/02/2019 - 13:03

      Bike riding is not a dangerous activity.

      • Bargain80 on 05/02/2019 - 13:49

        my comment is in the context of riding on the road, sharing space with cars.

        • trapper on 05/02/2019 - 14:05
          +2

          It's still not a dangerous activity, even on the road with cars.

          • Other on 07/02/2019 - 23:54

            @trapper: Everything is a dangerous activity - you know I read most people die in their beds!

  • SlickMick on 05/02/2019 - 11:27
    -2

    I think we're missing the most fundamental point: bike riders shouldn't be playing where motorised vehicles are.
    Ride bikes on bike paths. If there aren't any funds for bike paths, might have to bump up the rego a bit.

    • HighAndDry on 05/02/2019 - 11:40

      Bump up the rego for cyclists? Don't see why drivers should be paying for bicycle infrastructure. By definition they won't be using it.

      • dave999 on 05/02/2019 - 11:45

        But they would be paying for removing bikes from the road and getting that benefit.

        • HighAndDry on 05/02/2019 - 12:05

          I feel that benefits the cyclists more than it does drivers. Plus, if drivers just wanted cyclists off the roads - they can spend that money lobbying politicians to just ban bikes from roads.

          • dave999 on 05/02/2019 - 12:08
            +1

            @HighAndDry: Drivers would get bike free roads and less cars on the road as more people would cycle. Despite the 'helmet argument', by far the biggest reason people don't ride is no dedicated bike lanes.

            • HighAndDry on 05/02/2019 - 12:18

              @dave999: And yet the biggest beneficiaries would still be cyclists who would get lanes to cycle on. I'm not seeing a reason why they shouldn't pay for this since they stand to benefit the most.

      • SlickMick on 05/02/2019 - 12:16
        +1

        Yeah I meant a rego for cyclists.

        Some good points below though - I guess it's okay that our car regos make a contribution towards getting bikes off roads (like we give handouts to private schools to get some kids out of the public system??)

        But surely riders should make the greater contribution!!??

        • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 20:38
          +1

          Rego for cyclists would likely cost more to implement than it would achieve in revenue. It's been looked into and not implemented.
          A large portion of cyclists riding on those bike paths also have cars that they're paying rego on but staying in the garage, causing less congestion, pollution and road wear. Car rego also contributes less to road building than your general taxes do, as its a costly program to run. Cyclists also pay the same taxes.

          The general public should contribute to cycling infrastructure, not just cyclists as it is beneficial to a city to have more people riding bikes. It means a healthier population that are a lower health burden. It means lower pollution. Less congestion on roads. It is a lot cheaper to maintain bike paths than roads due to far less wear and lower construction costs in general.

          If you're a keen motorist who will never ride to work, the best thing for you would be to get more of those cars off the road and cycling instead. You'll face less congestion and better road conditions. The best thing for cyclists would be to get more cyclists, as the higher the proportion of the population that rides bikes also correlates closely with a reduction in cyclist mortality, with a place like the Netherlands having 1/4 the cyclists deaths per billion km ridden than the USA with their population riding on average 20x more km, and all the countries in between making a lovely straight line. When polled, the biggest barrier to people in cities taking up cycling is safety. So make cycling safer with better infrastructure and perhaps going by this thread, less murderous motorists who seem to want to actively murder us for being slightly inconvenienced occasionally.

          Anecdotes of 'a cyclist was shit and did this!' to back up any claim against cycling in general is pointless because it can equally be refuted with 'but a paedestrian did this!' or a 'motorist did this!'. A lot of people are shit at walking, riding and driving. Doesn't mean we should ban any of them. When I walk, run, ride or drive anywhere I don't assume the competence of anyone around me, so that I can better predict how they're going to try to kill me today.

          • Roman Sandstorm on 07/02/2019 - 11:38

            @[Deactivated]: @polk

            with a place like the Netherlands

            Not just you, Polk, but…. Enough already with all the freakin' references and comparisons with Netherlands.

            • Different bike culture
            • Different car and driving culture
            • Different historical and sociological approach to transport
            • Different population and housing density
            • Different cycling/commuting distances
            • Different geography
            • Different climate (vastly)
            • Different city designs and layouts
            • Different public transport infrastructure
            • Different cheeses and traditional footwear

            Yes, in the cyclist's unicorn and rainbows utopia, Australia and Australians would be much more like Netherlands, and we'd all live and commute and cycle in blissful puppy dog harmony and tolerance. And this is a fine ideal to strive towards. (I guess…)

            But continually citing this nirvana of cycling perfection does little to advance the cause here.

      • trapper on 05/02/2019 - 12:38

        Don't see why drivers should be paying for bicycle infrastructure. By definition they won't be using it.

        Maybe they are paying to get the bikes off the road? lol

        • HighAndDry on 05/02/2019 - 12:39
          -1

          Don't need a bike lane for that, a bullbar would suffice.

        • Omitsukasa on 05/02/2019 - 14:56

          Lol that's like paying a busker on the street not to play. Rather silly.

  • King Taddy on 05/02/2019 - 11:52
    +3

    Been a cyclist for 10 years.

    Only time I've come off my bike I was doing <20 km/h and got caught in the gap of drainage grate.

    Head went promptly into the sharp metal corner of a ute's tray.

    Hate to think what the results would have been if I didn't have a helmet on.

    Anyone that rides without is an idiot IMHO.

    • Melb69 on 06/02/2019 - 05:45
      +1

      That's what I think. It only takes one accident. Sure things happen and you might forget to put the helmet on, but for the sake of your own safety and to minimise injury and cost to others and yourself. Just wear a helmet.

      • ademiix on 07/02/2019 - 22:39

        It only takes one accident while you're walking as well. You could trip over and hit your head. Do you wear a helmet when you're walking?

        • King Taddy on 08/02/2019 - 15:49
          +1

          While you're technically not wrong, I believe the risk of serious injury when cycling on a road is multitudes higher than the risk of injury when walking.

          I choose to wear a helmet due to that extra risk.

          You don't hear many news stories of people splitting their heads open while out for a light stroll. Plenty of cyclists in hospitals everyday though…

  • dogboy on 05/02/2019 - 12:08
    +5

    Why can't people understand the difference between your and you're. It is not that hard ffs. Just makes you look stupid that you can't speak your own language properly.

    • SlickMick on 05/02/2019 - 12:23
      -1

      that's your contribution to this conversation?

      It's such a minor point I didn't even notice. Is it really such a big grievance to you?

      • CVonC on 05/02/2019 - 13:19
        +1

        It's fine, hamza23 fixed the grammar mistakes for OP now lol.

  • HardlyCharly on 05/02/2019 - 12:13

    I simply don't understand why anyone, on any kind of bike or scooter, wouldn't be wearing one. I was always very happy to wear one when I was younger, out in the sticks where it wasn't really enforced. Some people don't like the look, but guess what, you look like more of a (profanity) without one, and contrary to your opinion nobody is looking at you or caring about it anyway if you do wear it.

  • trapper on 05/02/2019 - 12:36
    +2

    The helmet or lack thereof has no relevance in determining fault for a traffic accident.

    • pegaxs on 05/02/2019 - 20:21

      No, but it may be the difference between "Negligent driving causing grievous bodily harm" (20 penalty points, $2,200 fine, 9 months jail) or "causing death" (50 penalty points, $3,300 fine, 18 months jail). It may be argued that, had the rider been wearing their helmet, as legislated (Aus Road Rule 256), that the drivers actions may have resulted in injury, rather than death.

      So, yes, it has no relevance to the cause of the accident or who was at fault, but it certainly may impact what the other driver is charged with…

      • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 20:42

        The driver isn't being charged with anything if they're not at fault. It's irrelevant in this specific example. But yes in theory in a completely different situation, it might have some bearing, possibly. Say if they were actually in a bike lane on the left hand side of the lane, and quite legally decided to go through the green traffic light straight ahead, and the driver on their right turned left into them. Then the driver would be at fault and they could be up for charges.

  • Baysew on 05/02/2019 - 13:57
    +1

    I wore a helmet and was generally riding on the footpath, but riding through lights on a red pedestrian signal and almost hit by a car turning left.

    Is this really a responsible?

    • Pables on 05/02/2019 - 18:27
      +1

      I'm surprised this was so far along in the discussion - he was riding on the footpaths most of the way, and then whenever he had a red light he decided he was a road cyclist and passed a left-turning vehicle on their left?

      • bozbargain on 05/02/2019 - 21:48

        I think I got what OP is saying now:

        “Today I saw 2 bicycle riders. I wore a helmet and was generally riding on the footpath”

        I also thought: what do these 2 other cyclists have to do with your story until I realised the ‘I’ may be a ‘1’. As in ‘One wore a helmet’.

  • field1985 on 05/02/2019 - 14:08
    +5

    The helmet law discourages people from cycling and directly leads to increases obesity, which is the single largest health issue we are facing today.

    Your argument about the cost to taxpayers is mute because of this. Taxpayers will pay either way; for head injuries or the obese populations increased health costs.

    Regarding you complaint about "motorised bike riders are riding in the bike lanes", so what? In the Netherlands (largest riding population in the world) petrol scooters are allowed to ride on bike paths, and get this, they do it WITHOUT A HELMET!! Madness? No, its commonsense and a lot safer then sharing the road with tonnes of steel/glass.

    This is how wrong we have it:

    • The helmet laws should be abolished for anyone over 15 years of age.

    • Bike paths should be open to petrol scooters, electric bikes and any other form of transport that is under 200kg (rider included), after all they are much closer to a bicycle in size/weight, then they are to a car/truck.

    Take a look for yourself: Dutch Cyclists

    • OzzyOzbourne on 05/02/2019 - 15:03
      +1

      Yes but in the Netherlands and most other civilised countries… People try to avoid accidents… Here people actively try to cause them with the assumption that they can blame someone else. So… We have nanny laws for everything

    • pegaxs on 05/02/2019 - 20:31

      The helmet law discourages people from cycling and directly leads to increases obesity

      HAHAHA… No it doesn’t. Lazyness, diet and poor/no exercise of any type is what causes obesity. If they repealed helmet legislation tomorrow and no one had to wear a helmet any more, it would not suddenly cure obesity. The wearing of a helmet is an excuse, not a reason. Fat people would not all suddenly take up riding if helmet laws were relaxed…

      They could walk, which require no helmet, or run, that requires no helmet or buy a training dyno/exercise bike that require no helmet, cardio work out, swimming, aerobics, pilates, martial arts, the list of "helmetless" activities goes on… yet fat people still exist. They are fat, not because they want to ride but, you know, "helmets". They are fat because they don’t want to ride, full stop.

      This has to go down as one of the silliest counter points I have ever read on this forum…

      • field1985 on 05/02/2019 - 21:37

        In places where helmet requirements have driven cyclists off the road the negative effects on public health outweigh any possible benefits in prevented injuries, with the health benefits of cycling outweighing the life-years lost by a factor of twenty to one. (Source)

        Obesity has a many factors, I did not say it was the sole cause of peoples obesity. Statistically it does lead to an increase.. but who cares about statistics? Not the OP or you. HAHAHA

        • pegaxs on 05/02/2019 - 22:12

          Bad source is a bad source. This is irrelevant. There is no correlation between helmet laws and the increase in obesity in that article. It just says that people who exercise more regularly are healthier. There is nothing in this article that backs up your theory that putting a helmet law in place had any affect on the amount of increase in obesity rates.

          Again, I will say this. The wearing of a helmet or not has no impact on obesity. There is no source you can give me that correlates an increase in obesity rates and attributed to the introduction of a helmet law. People who rode bikes before the law and now who dont ride, did not suddenly decide to become obese because of helmet laws.

          And please, I care about statistics. Please show me the statistical data that you have, that proves the introduction of helmet laws has caused any rise in obesity. Or, you know, even source data to a study, (by someone that isn’t a cycling biased/clickbait site) on the connection to obesity and helmet laws…

          Do you even have any statistics on the number of cyclists "driven off the road" by the introduction of helmet laws? Any? I would be happy with that. How many people, as a percentage of the cycling population, gave up riding forever because they had to wear a helmet? I love statistics, so hit me with them…

          • I3IGN0sE on 06/02/2019 - 11:39

            @pegaxs: https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/should-we-ease-…

            basically, I think we agree that cycling is better for obesity than sitting on a couch.

            This study, albeit reported by ABC, says a pretty high number of people would cycle more if helmet laws were reduced. 20% of people surveyed. is that not significant enough?

            • pegaxs on 07/02/2019 - 12:05

              @I3IGN0sE:

              Respondents were mostly Bicycle Network members

              And that comment (from the article) just invalidated your statistics. It was a questionnaire, not a survey and it was posted on a pro-cycling forum. People were not selected at random from all walks of the community, it was posted on a cycling forum where mostly cyclists could answer the questions. And it says that people would ride "more" not that they didn't ride and would suddenly take it up if laws were repealed. Although, some of it was interesting reading, so, cheers for that.

              And you can neg all you want, the questions is, what are the statistics for the number of people who gave up riding as a result of helmet laws and then the correlation between those figures and obesity statistics. You cant find any, because there either isn’t any, or the numbers are so insignificant, that they just don’t consider them to exist. People are obese because of life choices, not because of helmet laws.

              I want to see, of that segment of population that gave up cycling after mandatory helmet laws where introduced, who then went on to become obese as a direct result of giving up riding because of having to wear a helmet while riding.

              "Oh, I wouldn’t be so fat if only I could ride without a helmet…"
              "I really need to look at getting in better shape… If only I didnt have to wear a helmet…"
              No, they would still not ride.

              basically, I think we agree that cycling is better for obesity than sitting on a couch.

              Could not agree more. I only wish more people would do it. A bicycle helmet is not that much of a burden to wear. It's not like motorcycling where to go 5km down the street I have to get on a helmet, gloves, boots, jacket and pants, It's a light weight, throw on helmet. So the whole "I'm not riding if I have to wear a helmet" on a bicycle is pretty moot and is an excuse, not a reason.

              Would relaxing the laws help some people to get out more who need it, sure, but you are talking about maybe less than 0.1% of cases. So suggesting that a big driver behind obesity is the "mandatory helmet laws" is just laughable at best.

            • Roman Sandstorm on 07/02/2019 - 12:12
              +1

              @I3IGN0sE: @I3IGN0sE

              You need to read your own references.

              The survey you refer to was of Bicycle Network members. Specifically people who are active and interested in cycling - by virtue of them being members of a bicycling association. Duh.

              And of them, of that self-interested group, only 30 per cent said "they would ride more often if helmets weren't mandatory". And furthermore, "Almost everyone who currently wears a helmet said they would continue to wear a helmet even if the laws changed".

              And further down in the article… A meta-analysis of 40 studies: "concluded that helmets reduce the chances of a serious head injury by nearly 70 per cent and of fatal head injuries by 65 per cent."

    • trex on 06/02/2019 - 12:46
      +1

      and take a look at this,this and this

    • saltysalt on 08/02/2019 - 16:45
      +1

      Interesting that the video shows that the higher educated are more likely to cycle and the lower educated are more likely to look down upon cyclists. Hadn’t heard that before but reading some of these comments I’d say that statistic checks out.

  • Omitsukasa on 05/02/2019 - 14:58

    I don't understand why people choose not to wear a helmet. I'm guessing it's for aesthetic reasons? Or feeling sweaty? Rather silly excuses.

    • SkMed on 05/02/2019 - 15:54
      -1

      "Feeling sweaty"? You mean actually being sweaty, because thats what it does. Being a sweaty and unpresentable mess at work every day is a pretty reasonable and legitimate excuse I'd say.

      • Omitsukasa on 05/02/2019 - 23:53

        So that would classify as aesthetic reasons then

        • SkMed on 13/02/2019 - 17:11

          Well in this case Aesthetics' and practicality go hand in hand. Most people in city jobs would be fired if they came into work each day a smelly and unpresentable mess.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 05/02/2019 - 15:00
    +2

    Well, it's like wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets… Makes sense to do so.

    As for who's fault it is, I don't think you can intentionally hit cyclists without helmets and hope to get away with it.

  • outlander on 05/02/2019 - 15:16
    +1

    Here's a question: If you were in a cycling crash, would you want to live on with a severe disability?

    They say that helmets save lives, but they never break it down into what level they save them. If you get into a serious crash, a little piece of foam is not going to save you. It could be all these 'saved lives' are just saved on paper, but in the real world they live on with severe brain injuries.

    If living means not being able to do anything you enjoy and being a burden to your family, I'd rather skip the helmet. Safer without it.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 17:53

      If living means not being able to do anything you enjoy and being a burden to your family, I'd rather skip the helmet. Safer without it.

      And speed limits shouldn't be 40kmph. Running over someone could leave them crippled. I reckon school zones would be "safer" and less a "burden" if it were 200kmph.

      Finish the job, right?

      Ps. Child drop off? Duck and roll! Think of the efficiency!

      • outlander on 05/02/2019 - 17:56

        I reckon school zones would be "safer" and less a "burden" if it were 200kmph.

        I think the whole process of school kid pickups should be overhauled. The mad rush it creates at 3.30 to have all the sleep-deprived parents fighting to pick up their kids and rush off is a recipe for disaster, no matter what the speed.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 18:02
          +1

          That's true. Staggered (between scbools/year levels) start and finish times would be great but becomes an added burden to parents with children of different ages/schools.

          It's mad that majority of parents cannot feel safe letting their kids take the bus or walk to school but that's a whole different can of worms.

  • Eeples on 05/02/2019 - 15:40

    I think helmets ought to be compulsory on the road and footpath.

    But optional in a park.

    • mysterytal on 05/02/2019 - 16:01

      In any case I don't think adults should ever be riding on the footpath (footpaths with intersecting driveways). With reversing vehicles and the higher speed that adults tend to ride at it's more likely an accident will occur. Most drivers when reversing do look for enough time to see slower riding children and children (with some road sense) do tend to stop and wait for vehicles to reverse in front of them before proceeding.

  • petry on 05/02/2019 - 16:05
    -5

    all cyclists should pay a licence fee - they use roads so pay.

    cycle lanes cost extra money so why do drivers have to pay more and more to share the roads with morons who like to chat and block roads by riding 2 abreast - 1 in the lane and 1 in the road.

    This metre clearance crap is the last straw - tax em.

    • Baysew on 05/02/2019 - 17:56

      OP is

      riding on the footpath, but riding through lights on a red pedestrian signal

      So would they be entitled to a tax refund, under your plan, if not riding on the road?

      • petry on 05/02/2019 - 18:02

        not cycling on road would not be an excuse.

    • Eeples on 08/02/2019 - 13:38
      +1

      Public roads are our roads.
      Not sure why you think cyclists ought to pay to use the roads they already own.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join